Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate response

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.

Climate Myth...

IPCC is alarmist

"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change." (Roy Spencer)

At a glance

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a United Nations body founded in 1988. Its purpose is to inform governments about the status of our scientific knowledge with regard to our changing climate. In order to accomplish this role, it gathers and summarises evidence, producing an Assessment Report (AR) every few years. Each AR is an up-to-date account of the impacts and risks of a changing climate. However, because it takes 6-7 years to bring an AR to publication, by the time one is produced, the science is already moving ahead - as is the climate. The laws of physics wait for nobody.

It is important to clear up a couple of serious misunderstandings about the IPCC that are often encountered in online discussions. Firstly, the IPCC does not conduct original scientific research. That includes modelling. But how often do we see commentators ranting about 'IPCC models'?

In fact, climate models are managed by multiple modelling groups around the world. Together, these groups form the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). In AR6, published in 2022-23, the latest generation CMIP6 output was featured. The modellers, however, did the modelling, not the IPCC.

The above example illustrates the depth of confusion that is out there. The confusion was sown by the same merchants of doubt who created and distributed all the other denialist talking-points that we deal with here at Skeptical Science.

A second frequently-cast aspersion is that the IPCC is alarmist, exaggerating the threat of climate change to cause needless worry or panic. Let us repeat: it merely collates what the science is saying. And what the science is saying is very worrying.

We have understood the heat-trapping properties of certain gases such as water vapour, methane and carbon dioxide for more than 100 years. Yet we have raised the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide from a pre-industrial level of ~280 parts per million (ppm) to 420 ppm (in 2023). That is a 50% increase.

A CO2 level of 420 ppm last occurred on Earth during the middle of the Pliocene division of geological time, some 3.5 million years ago. Back then, the Polar ice-sheets were much smaller and vegetation distribution, detailed by the fossil record, differed dramatically from that of today. As an example, mixed woodlands were able to grow in Arctic Siberia, where today there is just stunted tundra. Sea levels were metres higher than today's. In AR6, the IPCC summarises, in its typically non-dramatic language:

"While present-day warming is unusual in the context of the recent geologic past in several different ways, past warm climate states (i.e. the Pliocene) present a stark reminder that the long-term adjustment to present-day atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has only just begun. That adjustment will continue over the coming centuries to millennia."

If you're not worried about the threat of climate change, then you haven't been paying attention.

Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!

Further details

Roy Spencer, an advisor to evangelical lobby-group the Cornwall Alliance, is our myth-provider in this instance. He is insinuating that the IPCC has an agenda that distorts the reports they produce. Specifically, that the IPCC exaggerates what the science says in favour of anthropogenic global warming. It's a frequently encountered argument from climate science deniers who know that there is a sector of the populace receptive to conspiracy-theories that they can play. Yet those same deniers offer no credible evidence to support it.

Some critics go even further down this road, implying that the IPCC actively suppresses science that doesn’t support the theory that climate change is being caused by human activities. In response to this, one has to ask, "what science". If a bundle of poor, demonstrably error-ridden papers in dubious journals is the answer (it is), then that's why such material doesn't pass muster. And there are a fair few such journals out there, some created purely to misinform.

So: to the IPCC. It was founded in 1988 in order to collate a broad range of scientific research into the climate and our effects on it and to summarise the science for policymakers. It's a UN body, bringing together the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The science they summarise has already been published. That means it is straightforward for a scientifically-literate reader to follow the references. They can compare the primary science with the IPCC reports and check them for consistency.

Another criticism of the IPCC is in the opposite sense - that they are too conservative. To a lay-person, this may seem reasonable on the grounds that a proportion of the people who finalise IPCC reports are government representatives, not scientists. These represent 195 member-states and as we know, governments prefer the status quo wherever possible. In the early decades of the IPCC there was also resentment about the disproportionate representation of climate scientists from OECD countries. This was discussed in a very readable paper following the release of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (Hulme & Mahony 2010).

Are the IPCC too conservative? In AR4, the global sea level rise prediction amounted to 18-59 centimetres over the 1990-2090 period, plus an unspecified amount that could come from the Greenland and Antarctica ice-sheets. That prompted robust criticism from within the glaciology and oceanography communities. A central theme to the critique was that sea level rise was clearly accelerating and that the acceleration was not taken into account (e.g. Rahmstorf 2010).

That criticism has continued into recent years. There is discussion of how decision makers would benefit from the reframing of IPCC terminology. After all, it is important to avoid unintentionally masking worst-case scenarios (Siegert et al. 2020). Prominent climate scientist James Hansen has called this issue ‘scientific reticence’.

However, others (e.g. Solomon et al. 2008) have argued that AR4 stated that no consensus could be reached on the magnitude of the potential fast ice-sheet melt processes that some suspect could lead to 1–2 m of sea-level rise this century. At the time of AR4, these feasible but relatively data-poor processes were not included in the quantitative estimates. This takes us into the territory of uncertainty.

What is not perhaps appreciated by the general public is how science deals with uncertainty. Uncertainty in science is what drives it along, since any uncertain area deserves thorough investigation. This is the case even where a phenomenon is well-understood - such as the core fact that CO2 without doubt warms the planet. It's the details, the minutiae, where the uncertainty problem rears its head.

Here's an example of uncertainty and how it's handled. We can answer different questions with different levels of certainty. For example, how do we reply if asked, "how much is glacier X going to retreat by 2100?" We look at the data and see if the current rate of retreat is documented. If so we have a baseline. But we are still uncertain how emissions will pan out in the future. Therefore we plot a forward extrapolation of the current rate, plus a range of possible outcomes if emissions accelerate at one end, stay the same or plummet at the other. These were originally expressed as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). Four such pathways were used for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), published in 2014. The pathways describe different climate change scenarios, depending on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the future. They are named after a possible range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100: RCP 2.6 = 2.6 Watts/square metre, with RCP 4.5, 6, and 8.5 having a similar structure, with RCP the worst case scenario of a continued fossil fuels binge.

Since AR5, this structure has been revised into Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs; fig. 1).

Emission trajectories for different SSPs.

Fig. 1: emissions trajectories on the different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), from IPCC AR6 WGI SPM box SP1.

Reports released by the IPCC over the years have used a very specific terminology to express the certainty level of specific outcomes, tabled in fig. 2, again from AR6.

IPCC language to express levels of uncertainty.

Fig. 2: currently-used IPCC language to express levels of uncertainty. Advice on how to describe risk for IPCC authors can be found here (PDF).

Other questions are a lot harder to answer because there are so many independent variables involved. But what about possible future events that carry a vague but non-negligible probability of occurring? A good example is the rapid collapse in the coming decades of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. In IPCC terminology, such a high-impact event would be labelled as “unlikely” or “very unlikely” in the cited time-frame. The question therefore has to be, "do these terms used by the IPCC convey the right message to policymakers?" Scientists, for whom such terminology is everyday, are different to policymakers. There's the risk that the latter will react to such words by thinking, "oh that's okay then, not going to happen on my watch".

Language clearly matters here because we're dealing with different people who have differing reference frames. Climate scientists tend to work with decades to centuries whereas palaeoclimatologists deal with tens of thousands to millions of years. But politicians typically think in terms of years to decades at the most. The next election cycle is what matters to a lot of them, with some honourable exceptions.

Furthermore, there are serious risks associated with language because of the way the media interprets statements. In particular, a recent study into media treatment of part of AR6 found that denialist responses to IPCC output are largely confined to TV channels and other media with a right-wing worldview (Painter et al. 2023 - open access). The trouble is that the right-wing media is a formidable machine with a lot of reach. There is certainly a case for plain speaking here in order to counter their messaging.

Clearly there is always room for improvement in any organisation and the IPCC is no exception to that rule. But claims that the IPCC is alarmist are not supported by evidence. If anything, the published criticisms from the peer-reviewed literature suggest the opposite. The IPCC may - in certain areas - be erring on the side of caution.

Last updated on 5 November 2023 by John Mason. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Denial101x video

Here is the relevant lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial


Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Comments 76 to 100 out of 138:

  1. Tom; Grey Literature is a scientific term, your own liking of grey literature or unliking is just your opinion.. The IPCC through Pachauri have repeatedly claimed their reports are only based on 'peer reviewed literature' which is a false claim - ive shown why. I dont think this is the forum to discuss why grey literature is good or bad or what makes its referencing it dangerous - this is a topic well versed in scientific circles when producing scientific papers etc.
  2. krisbaum @76, "grey literature" is a term from library and information science and refers to the accessibility of the literature, not its quality, nor even the quality of the review process it undergoes. There are many examples of grey literature that undergo far more rigorous review than the normal peer reviewed literature - IPCC reports being just one example. Consequently your blanket condemnation of grey literature is misinformed. It is also evasive. Your attack on the IPCC's integrity is based on the fact that the IPCC uses grey literature, and indeed it says it does. That is a matter of complete irrelevance unless you can also show that the grey literature actually used by the IPCC is actually of dubious quality. To mount the argument that IPCC reports are dubious because they used grey literature, but then to insist that the dubious nature of grey literature be treated as an axiom is to beg the entire question. Here is the challenge you need to take - go through the 54 purported examples of grey literature in the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapt 1 as identified by P Gosselin, and show: 1) Why the reference should be considered of low quality such that it should not be used in the report; 2) Why the use made of the reference in the report was inappropriate given its nature and low quality; and 3) What major conclusion, as identified in the summary for policy makers could not have been made without use of that reference. If you decline this challenge, you show your entire argument to be based on innuendo rather than analysis. At its best, it would amount to an argument from reverse authority - ie, the literature is classified as not authoritative (ie, grey) and therefore is automatically rejected on that basis alone. Personally, I am going to enjoy your attempts to explain why: Agassiz, L., 1837: Discours d’ouverture sur l’ancienne extension des glaciers. Société Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles, Neufchâtel. and Lorenz, E.N., 1967: On the Nature and Theory of the General Circulation of the Atmosphere. Publication No. 218, World Meteorological Association, Geneva, 161 pp. ought to be considered to be of poor quality and not worth referencing, even though they are undoubtedly grey literature. Finally, please note that if you cannot show for any reference point (3) above, you have not shown Pachauri's that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are based on the peer reviewed literature to be false.
  3. Tom @ 74, Your point that lead authors are part of a team is well made. I reviewed the CV of the author that Krisbaum linked to. Apparently he had received a MS in Geology shortly before the 1994 IPCC report and received his PhD in 2004 after he was a lead author. He remains an expert in the field. I noticed in his list of publications an unusually large number of book chapters. From this I conclude that the author is an exceptional writer and summarizer of others work, just what you need for a lead author of a summary report. It is typical of fake skeptics to make mountains of nits that are irrelevant to the point. In any case, if you have to go back to 1994 to find an author that you think might have been inappropriate for an unpaid position writing a report that was not very important at the time you are looking very hard to be disappointed. When did you last cite the 1994 report? Where I live it is 2012. This shows that all of the writers for the third and fourth IPCC reports were qualified.
  4. I think it's simple question time: What does the IPCC's use of grey literature mean for you, krisbaum?
  5. Moderator, is it against the comments policy to point out evidence of motivated reasoning on Krisbaum's part?
    It [an IPCC report] is used to decide the fate of trillions of dollars of investment through carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes.
    It appears Krisbaum is concerned about the cost of mitigating AGW, and is really making an argument from consequences . If so, perhaps he should be directed to The economic impacts of carbon pricing thread.
    Response: [DB] It is always welcome to suggest more appropriate threads for portions of discussions, if applicable. The one you suggest would indeed be a valid thread to continue that portion of the discussion.
  6. Tom@77; ' Your attack on the IPCC's integrity is based on the fact that the IPCC uses grey literature, and indeed it says it does.' Tom, I have repeated the point a few times now. Pachauri and the IPCC boast that their reports are only based on Peer Reviewed literature. If the reports are not baed on Peer Reviewed literature, it should be made completely clear. eg. “People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 “The IPCC doesn’t do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007 “This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008
    Response: [DB] You even quote Tom Curtis who points out the IPCC says it uses grey literature. Without further equivocation, please show via link to credible source where the IPCC states it only uses peer-reviewed literature. It is patently, completely clear your issue is with Pachauri, not the IPCC.
  7. krisbaum, where did Michael say "leader of their field"? He said "lead writer" or "lead author." You also say that the IPCC reports are not based on peer-reviewed literature. That is not true. They are based on both peer-reviewed literature and grey literature. The quantities of both categories have been amply given. If a building rests on a foundation of 4000 blocks of granite and five blocks of sandstone, is it fair to say that the building does not rest on granite? The people on this website find the IPCC to be an excellent resource, because the IPCC has gathered and summarized published climate research. Why wouldn't the IPCC be a good resource? It's a huge, multifaceted project. You use the nitpick of Pachauri to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. It's like me saying, "Well Anthony Watts' new study did not take time-of-day into account. Therefore, all 'skeptics' should be ignored (because they're frauds, man!)."
  8. Krisbaum @81, I have challenged you to show an example of inappropriate use of non-peer reviewed literature in the IPCC, and you have declined to take up that challenge. The challenge included a specific element of showing were major conclusions of the IPCC were derived from grey literature of any sort (not just the non-peer reviewed grey literature). Yes, it is true that the IPCC uses grey literature. Some of that literature may even be considered inappropriate. For example, the IPCC AR4 WG1, Chapter 1 cites Gwynne, P., 1975: The cooling world. Newsweek, April 28, 64. On its face, citing an article in Newsweek is a classic example of use of inappropriate sources. However, consider the context in which it was used:
    "Not all theories or early results are verified by later analysis. In the mid-1970s, several articles about possible global cooling appeared in the popular press, primarily motivated by analyses indicating that Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperatures had decreased during the previous three decades (e.g., Gwynne, 1975)."
    So, an article from a popular news magazine was cited to demonstrate that articles about possible global cooling have appeared in the popular press. In history, that is called consulting primary sources, and is considered far preferable to consulting secondary sources, eg, a peer reviewed article about popular publications on climate change in the mid 1970s. Despite this being excellent academic practice, you want to cite this as an example of poor academic practice by the IPCC. What is more, you want to do so purely on the basis of the presence of the citation with absolutely no examination of the actual use made of the citation. Another example of grey literature in Chap 1 of WG1 is Hawking, S., 1988: A Brief History of Time. Bantam Press, New York, 224 pp. Technically, A Brief History of Time is not grey literature because it was published by a commercial publishing house. That your primary source classifies it as grey literature simply shows them to be incompetent at their self appointed task. But I will grant that it is a popular book, and probably not peer reviewed. So how was it used?
    ". It is not the belief or opinion of the scientists that is important, but rather the results of this testing. Indeed, when Albert Einstein was informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, ‘If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!’ (Hawking, 1988); however, that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form of testable results."
    Well I'm just devastated. Clearly this hugely inappropriate use of an Einstein quotation completely overthrows any basis of confidence in IPCC reports! /sarc I say end sarc, but my sarcastic comments in fact represent your actual case. Chapter 1 of WG1 was given a grade of B for the use of non-peer reviewed sources from your favourite source. Now, first it should be noted that the majority of "grey literature" cited in the IPCC is extensively reviewed by peers of the authors before publication - as for example with white papers, or reports from scientific organizations, or indeed IPCC reports themselves. They are not grey literature because they are or are not peer-reviewed, but because of their method of publication. Second, it should be noted that your favourite sources have listed as grey literature many items which, while not peer reviewed, are in fact not grey literature. An example, the article by Agassiz, was given in my prior post. But the fact that it was not peer reviewed before publication no more makes Agassiz ground breaking work inferior science than the same lack of peer review makes Einstein's seminal papers on relativity inferior science. So, bearing in mind those two fatal flaws in their classification system, the appropriate question is how many poor quality sources have been used by the IPCC. In chapter 1 of WG1, so far as I have been able to determine - just two. The two quoted above. And as demonstrated, their use was entirely appropriate. It becomes blatantly clear that your entire argument depends on your not examining details. As an argument based on not examining details is always a con job, I would recommend that in future you only present detailed examples which are shown to be sources of poor quality (not just grey literature, and not just non-peer reviewed, but of a genuinely questionable quality) and which you show significant conclusions to depend upon, ie, the significant conclusion cannot be drawn from other sources of high quality also cited by the IPCC. If you are unwilling to take up that challenge, you show thereby that when examined in detail, there is no basis to question the IPCC's use of sources. You will also show by your failure that your entire case consists in sloganeering. Finally, you keep on coming back to quotes by Pachauri as if they somehow prove the IPCC has said it does not use grey literature despite the direct statement by the IPCC documents that they do. However, I'm game. If you want to prove Pachauri wrong, all you need to do is prove that a questionable source is relied upon by the IPCC for a main conclusion. After all, Pachauri does not say that the IPCC never cites grey literature. He says that they do not rely on non-peer reviewed literature for their findings. And that is only the case if the IPCC has a major finding which they would not have reached without the citation of dubious quality. Put simply, showing that the IPCC cited Newsweek did not prove Pachauri wrong, for no substantive conclusion about climate science was reached from that citation. PS: Given your thesis, in future I will not accept any citation by you of grey literature as evidence. You may find that embarrassing as the only evidence you have cited has all been from grey literature; but better to be embarrassed than hypocritical as you are currently being.
  9. I agree with Tom here. To allow Krisbaum to register any point by claiming that Pachauri overstates his claim does not seem fair to me. I haven't seen any evidence presented that Pachauri's claims, quoted by Krisbaum or anyone else in this thread, are overstated. I.e., I agree with Tom that it can be entirely consistent to draw conclusions based only on peer reviewed literature while still citing other literature. In the absence of anyone being able to give concrete contrary examples, this is the case for Pachauri and the IPCC. It certainly is fair to state that Krisbaum's claims are overstated, and embarrassingly so. There is nothing to his claims. But it is not clear to me that Krisbaum is being demonstrably hypocritical. I don't think he is claiming that any statement should only be based on peer reviewed literature. To hold someone else to a higher standard than held for oneself is certainly likely to be unreasonable, but it need not be hypocritical. It may be that in his mind, Krisbaum merely thinks he is holding Pachauri to a self-imposed standard that Krisbaum believes Pachauri/IPCC has failed to live up to. I hope that Krisbaum has the fairness of mind to either demonstrate his claims and/or honestly admit his reasoning is at best misguided. The rest of Tom's above post makes an entirely salient point with pertinent examples, and is what Krisbaum needs to respond to in order to attempt any substantiation of his claims.
  10. Daniel Livingston @84, you may think it is not hypocritical of Krisbaum to use grey literature. It cannot have escaped your notice, however, that his entire argument depends on his pointing to the existence of grey literature without any discussion of the extent, quality or use of that literature. If the mere fact of literature being grey, is in his opinion, sufficient to rule it out as an acceptable source, then he is hypocritical to cite grey literature to establish his case. However, if he publicly and without equivocation states that grey literature can be of the the highest quality, and that the citation of grey literature by the IPCC in no way, by itself detracts from the quality of the IPCC reports, I will certainly withdraw the claim of hypocrisy and consider grey literature he adduces in support of his case. Without such a clear statement, however, I feel the conclusion that he is being hypocritical must stand.
  11. Fair enough reasoning, Tom Curtis @ 85. I see Krisbaum has dug more of a hole for himself than I at first realised. I hope he'll have the openness and honesty to see it.
  12. One can always hope.Since the ball is in Krisbaum's camp, I'll add 2 questions to the challenges posed by others above. Krisbaum, How did you get the impression that aerosols travel only about 10 km from their source? How did you form the opinion that this falsehood was common knowledge?
  13. Krisbaum... Think clearly for a moment. Is Pachauri saying that every single piece of science in the IPCC reports is peer reviewed literature. I don't think so. He's saying that the IPCC reports are "based" on the peer reviewed science. That statement does not exclude other sources. Look, Pachauri is a smart guy. He's not going to make completely unfounded statements, especially in such a high profile position.
  14. Philipe; to expand; it is common knowledge anthropogenic aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime and therefore a very heterogeneous spatial distribution. 10km is arbitrary, I used it to simplify my statement(s).

    [DB] This image of carbon monoxide aerosols from Asia proves you, and common knowledge, very wrong:

    The source website for that image is The image itself can be found here.

  15. Rob; 'Look, Pachauri is a smarty guy. He's not going to make completely unfounded statements, especially in such a high profile position. ' Please back up this claim with some evidence.
  16. krisbaum... What? Are you looking for test scores to show that he's smart?
  17. Rob - maybe have a dig around the internet yourself, there's plenty of information about grey literature usage in quite important areas of the IPCC's AR4. Maybe start here;
  18. krisbaum... "...aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime and therefore a very heterogeneous spatial distribution." Please back up this claim with some evidence.
  19. ' Look, Pachauri is a smart guy. He's not going to make completely unfounded statements, especially in such a high profile position. ' Rob, I just showed you how he made unfounded statements, far reaching across the media. Telling the world the reports are only based on peer reviewed literature was misleading.

    [DB] "Telling the world the reports are only based on peer reviewed literature"

    Only? No more making things up. Support this statement with a link to an actual, verifiable quote; this is not an optional exercise.

  20. What kind of a claim do you want Rob? Go pick up a copy of 'Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols' T. Novakov,1* V. Ramanathan,2 J.E. Hansen,3 T.W. Kirchstetter,1 M. Sato,3 J. E. Sinton,1 J.A. Sathaye1 1Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
  21. krisbaum... I would suggest you read the rules established by the IPCC on the uses of non-peer reviewed literature. Do you think for some reason Pachauri would be unaware of these policies?
  22. krisbaum @ 95... That's a paper on black carbon. Try again.
  23. krisbaum @89, it is common knowledge that aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime. It is not common knowledge, because it it not true, that that life time is so short that SO2 emissions in North America and Europe will not impact on SO2 concentrations in Greenland ice. Yet you quoted the made up figure of 10 km in order to rebut the evidence that relative SO2 levels neighbouring the North Atlantic are recorded by Greenland Ice Cores. Without your quotation of that extremely short figure (absurdly short, in fact), you would have had no argument. There is a name for people who make up facts in order to bolster their case. I am not permitted to use it here due to the comments policy.
  24. krisbaum @ 94... Now wait a minute. When I read back on your quotes from Pachauri none of them includes a statement saying that the IPCC uses "only" peer-reviewed literature. Pachauri states that the IPCC reports are "based" on peer reviewed literature. As I tried to point out before those statements do not preclude the use of non-peer reviewed literature. And as I've pointed out there are specific IPCC rules for the use of non-peer reviewed literature that Pachauri is certainly aware of. I would suggest that you're getting worked up over a narrow semantical interpretation of Pachauri's words.
  25. DB: i'm pretty sure you just violated your own posting rules by putting up an animated giff without any references or source whatso-ever.. How do i know you didnt just draw that animation? Where's it from? whats it really mean?

    [DB] The source website for that image is The image itself can be found here.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts, accuse others of deception and make personal attacks on other participants here, make things up and continually complain about moderation. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us